trump begs Florida judge to restore his Twitter account

[meaner gene]

No, it’s up for the legislature to decide.

And they did.

We have a dispute and the Internet is too knew. Why are you afraid to allow the courts to decide? Pretty sure this is going to the courts in France very soon.

He tried to tell you, the legislature already defined what a common carrier is. You want a court to review what the legislature clearly has sole authority over.

 

[Donald H]

Nope. Trump is arguing that Twitter is a content provider vs. a disseminator. Nothing more. I agree with him. They may still keep Trump suspended. That has zero to do with how they are regulated. You're discussing apples and oranges with me.

If Twitter decides to hold to their decision then Trump will have no other recourse than having the judicial branch force Twitter to comply with his wishes. I'll leave my opinion at that.

 

[colfax_m]

Hasn't anyone told him he's no longer President? Is he THAT delusional?

One can only imagine.

 

[bodecea]

if the rational to ban him is that he called for violence it should be, since he never did in the first place

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You don’t comment at all about government action doctrine?

Pretty weird omission if you think you understand the argument in the lawsuit.

Do you?

Again, we have courts to settle disputes. Yes or no? I need to make sure you agree with me here before we continue.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He tried to tell you, the legislature already defined what a common carrier is. You want a court to review what the legislature clearly has sole authority over.

And we have courts to dispute what the legislative branch decides. If this is frivolous the court throw it out and the problem is solved. Why do you have an issue with this? You continue to refuse to answer my question.

 

[toobfreak]

What's the point in government if you can't use it to bully private companies?

Whoops! Government IS the private company now.

1. First democrats took over key government positions.
2. Then democrats took over mainstream media and education.
3. Next democrats took over key industry positions.
4. Now democrats control key big tech corporations controlling information.

So what we have is democrats in Big Tech working with democrats in government to discredit, ridicule, then finally silence key opposition. After rigging their election just as Hillary rigged Bernie's in 2016 to fail.

When you talk to your banker now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
When you talk to your doctor now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
When you talk to your educator now, you are talking to GOVERNMENT.
Name any institution now not totally controlled by federal government.

And when you say government now, we are really talking about DEMOCRAPS.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If Twitter decides to hold to their decision then Trump will have no other recourse than having the judicial branch force Twitter to comply with his wishes. I'll leave my opinion at that.

And the court may throw his case out. Yes or no?

 

[colfax_m]

Again, we have courts to settle disputes. Yes or no? I need to make sure you agree with me here before we continue.

Sure. Courts settle disputes.

Do you think that you understand any of the legal argument here?

 

[ClaireH]

People keep using the word platform like it has any impact on this issue whatsoever.

It doesn’t.

A platform or publisher or anyone else on the internet has all the rights they need in order to take off any content they want.

It is my understanding that a platform does not face the legal consequences a publisher can because the publisher is in fact producing the information whereas the platform provides a service to be used as a place to post someone else’s interpretation of the information. That’s a stark difference legally in regards to their individual actions and legal limitations. There is an urgent need for action in Congress to defined digital rules for platforms and producers alike. Put it to a vote statewide, that would be quite the interesting outcome state by state.

 

[justinacolmena]

You are declaring that Twitter should be shut down. That's fascist.

Shut down PolitiFact, Snopes, FactCheck, Pew Research, too. That disgusting democrat party line on the left with all dissent stifled is not freedom of speech. It's Anti-American war propaganda, same as that from all the other proponents of COVID lies, pill-pushing, and vaxxing, and mental hospitalization.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure. Courts settle disputes.

Do you think that you understand any of the legal argument here?

I do. But I think he loses it. I do think the courts will state that Twitter will be regulated differently. But I could be wrong on both counts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I disagree and in modern countries the courts settle disagreements.

Then publish something on/in the NYT without their permission and then I will agree with you.

Why are you against the courts settling this dispute?

Where have I ever said I was against the courts settling this dispute? I have given my opinion on what the result should be, nothing more...

 

[meaner gene]

So you don't trust our court system? OK

I do. I do not always agree with them. For example Tom Brady sued the NFL and lost and remained suspended. I disagreed with the decision but I accepted it. Many thought that was stupid too. We don't get to decide what is or is not stupid. Our courts do and they can easily throw the case out if they want to. Why are you so against this path?

Because the courts are a finite resource, like hospital ICU beds. The courts should not be clogged with frivolous cases, forcing more important cases to wait.

 

[colfax_m]

It is my

It is my understanding that a platform does not face the legal consequences a publisher can because the publisher is in fact producing the information whereas the platform provides a service to be used as a place to post someone else’s interpretation of the information. That’s a stark difference legally in regards to their individual actions and legal limitations.

That’s true for other media. Not true for the internet.

The law states quite clearly that if you’re running a website, and people on that website submit content to be posted (like a tweet), then the website doesn’t take take legal responsibility for that content (outside some specific human trafficking type situations).

 

[justinacolmena]

Again, we have courts to settle disputes. Yes or no? I need to make sure you agree with me here before we continue.

Courts don't settle disputes in America. Their main function is to enforce gun control restraining orders and involuntary hospitalization for alleged mental health reasons and collect child support and alimony for single mothers.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then publish something on/in the NYT without their permission and then I will agree with you.



Where have I ever said I was against the courts settling this dispute? I have given my opinion on what the result should be, nothing more...

Then the courts will 100% agree with you and we are good.

 

[colfax_m]

I do. But I think he loses it. I do think the courts will state that Twitter will be regulated differently. But I could be wrong on both counts.

I don’t think you do. You omit significant components and make statements with very little meaning using language that is likewise not meaningful.

I hope he loses. He could break the internet if he doesn’t.

 

[justinacolmena]

Because the courts are a finite resource, like hospital ICU beds. The courts should not be clogged with frivolous cases, forcing more important cases to wait.

We've got to take our guns back and cut the Democrats short here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then the courts will 100% agree with you and we are good.

Rarely do I and the courts agree 100%.